Well, at least the looks are spot on 
I believe my naturally aspirated C class is also a little underpowered (or at least a little low on torque) and about 100 kg to heavy. The turbo GT is only five seconds slower that the unlimited C class.
In a final rush to set up the car semi-properly i tried a quick turbo engine to see the differences, definitely more powah, but a huge hit to the ecoā¦still undecided. Donāt know if I will have time to do a GT car.
Talking of weights, Iām almost sure mine weighs way too much, especially seeing the weight limitā¦mine itās waaaay too overweight than 700kg, sitting on around a ton and some kgs.
700kg in unrealistic I believe. With a turbo engine I think one could bring it down to 970-980kg or so. Mine also weights 1100 kg.
Submitted, in the end I chose to use NA engines (yes did a GT entry too), soon Iāll add some pics.
Edit: Here are them, there is my C Class Entry, the āM470 Corsaā
And the GT Class partecipant, the āL-MR Scuderiaā
Specs for Gemina XIII - Ilmor Pa-X & Gemina XIII Lancieri GTT
Like I said, a turbo unit for the C class probably would have been a far better idea.
I simply couldnāt find a way to get a turbo unit with good enough economy not to at least double my number of pit stops for infinitesimal gains. Even over 350 or so laps it didnāt actually improve anything. So I also went with NA because the power outputs were pretty decent. I think my stats are very similar to radustās.
I also went to the NA optionā¦ nice top speed on the Gemina XIII Lancieri GTT .
My GT entry - Haia GT - (and the strips looking good again uff!! hehe)
Thatās one of the most badass cars Iāve seen around here.
[quote=āRaduSTā]Specs for Gemina XIII - Ilmor Pa-X & Gemina XIII Lancieri GTT
Like I said, a turbo unit for the C class probably would have been a far better idea.[/quote]
700bhpā¦I was lucky to get in the 600bhp leagueā¦
Iām so going to wind up dead lastā¦like Lotus at Indy 2012.
Maybe not, weāll see.
TY, the aerodynamicist was a bit crazy in that era 
How are pit stops going to be calculated? Also donāt we need to know the capacity of the fuel tank and divide that by the XX liters/100km 
This is a excel sheet with the formulas used in the '74 edition. Personally I think we should used a fuel consumption multiplier because it is a bit unrealistic to think that a 700 hp car would need less than 10l/100km in a race.
24Hoursoflemans1974_rev2.zip (11.8 KB)
[quote=āRazyxā]I also went to the NA optionā¦ nice top speed on the Gemina XIII Lancieri GTT .
My GT entry - Haia GT - (and the strips looking good again uff!! hehe)
http://nsae02.casimages.net/img/2015/01/31/150131012903871316.jpg[/quote]
Oh my god, that looks wicked. I think Nightfury is due for a bit of a restylingā¦
vmo posted his method here: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=5330&start=20#p57751
I actually referenced it, and yes, I agree with RaduST. When I was doing my own calculations for a tournament idea and contemplating the factors in even a 2 hour race (the original concept of the BSLL lol), I thought the best way was to multiply the fuel requirements by 3-4 times.
EDIT: As raduST has posted stats and entries are now closed, I would take this opportunity to share as well.
Thereās a hint in the picture of the carā¦ I donāt know if itās competitive, but I managed a significant cut in lap time over the '74 times using a couple of tricksā¦ for some reason the car doesnāt really care about the rear downforce (probably because the carās tail heavy), but the front coming up ruined high speed cornering so bad it goes 4 seconds faster around Sans Chicanes with this setupā¦ and aero set to zero! 
As somebody else said, when going with a 718hp setup, the car ended up going slower than with my current 707hp setup. I think thatās because while I have less top end power due to the reduced stroke, I have a higher rev limit, so upshifting puts my car at a place in the powerband. In addition, having learnt the trick from nialloftara, I double-baffled the exhaust, the flow restriction makes a small but noticeable boost in lower end torque.
[quote]Thereās a hint in the picture of the carā¦ I donāt know if itās competitive, but I managed a significant cut in lap time over the '74 times using a couple of tricksā¦ for some reason the car doesnāt really care about the rear downforce (probably because the carās tail heavy), but the front coming up ruined high speed cornering so bad it goes 4 seconds faster around Sans Chicanes with this setupā¦ and aero set to zero! 
[/quote]
Strop, if you really managed a 4 second improvement over drakeās 3:50 from '74, then my Pa-X will be destroyed 
Actually not funny. I most admit I didnāt thought about adding a front lip. My very simplistic strategy was focused only on reducing drag and increasing power/torque.
[quote=āRaduSTā]Strop, if you really managed a 4 second improvement over drakeās 3:50 from '74, then my Pa-X will be destroyed
Actually not funny. I most admit I didnāt thought about adding a front lip. My very simplistic strategy was focused only on reducing drag and increasing power/torque.[/quote]
Nah not quite 4, but like you were saying, without a few tricks (the skinny front tyres helped too), I was going significantly slower than Drakeās car from '74 and wondering WHYYYYYYYYY THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE 8 YEARS BETTER 
But then yeah as I posted earlier, I had this eureka moment. The question will be how many other people figured it out too. I suspect if Drake is in on this round, heāll know the real inside angles.
Iāll have to investigate this skinny front tires thing on MR cars. So far the quickest setup I could find was with McPherson strut + fat tires up front.
Yeah, totally try double-wishbones skinny tyres. My underpowered, underperforming Communist car had a few aces up its sleeve on certain tracks due to that setup. I like to think of it as a similar principle to the Nissan Deltawing
TY man but, yep, probably itās wickedā¦ lacking power everywhere hehe.
I canāt think in an endurance race without some good reliability so I foresee a slow run to the checkered flagā¦ maybe the eco thing be enough to keep up the pace (what I doubt), weāll see.
Dunno why but I tend to sabotage my cars with my own thoughts lol.
Hmm really nice those vents on the bonnet and some details on the Persephone.
I did the math, with current calculations you can do up to about 10.4L/100km I think? Without losing time for a 5th pit stop. Given that the cars generally do like 22-30 pit stops for various reasons in LMP, I figure a multiplier of about 4 for the fuel would be closer to race conditions, though itās hard to say how much of that is refuelling and others is maintenance etc. etc. the pit strategy gets really complicated xD
[quote=āRazyxā]
Hmm really nice those vents on the bonnet and some details on the Persephone.[/quote]
thanks! I only recently discovered what you can do with insetting the strips over the vents and the features of the vent depth mappingā¦ something youāve been using to great effect especially with your GT car. You can have the .lua if you like, if you want to take a closer look!
[quote=āstropā]I did the math, with current calculations you can do up to about 10.4L/100km I think? Without losing time for a 5th pit stop. Given that the cars generally do like 22-30 pit stops for various reasons in LMP, I figure a multiplier of about 4 for the fuel would be closer to race conditions, though itās hard to say how much of that is refuelling and others is maintenance etc. etc. the pit strategy gets really complicated xD
[/quote]
Hmm dunno man but the statistics shows a good 7.31l/100km (top secret)ā¦ Iāll wait and see how it plays out.
[quote=āstropā]
thanks! I only recently discovered what you can do with insetting the strips over the vents and the features of the vent depth mappingā¦ something youāve been using to great effect especially with your GT car. You can have the .lua if you like, if you want to take a closer look![/quote]
Sure, I wish to take a closer look, I like that racing aesthetic and I think it fits the era with a modern feeling.